The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana

PobreCarlos · Jan 31, 2012

My goodness! Another couple of typically "Teamster" responses....just full of insight and pertinent information! After reading them, I guess prospective members have even more of an incentive to voluntarily seek union membership....or, more to the point, allow it to be forced on them. After all, who could deny the merits of such effective "representation" as these two exemplify? And what kind of "crazy" considers it important to make his OWN decisions, and deny the "right" of worthies such as "Returntosender" and "metoyou" here to make such decisions for them? And talk about "crazy"! What kind of idiot would presume to NOT want to pay for such invaluable "representation" to boot? "Crazy" indeed!

What's this world coming to???????

hypocrisy · Jan 31, 2012

Oh! Looks like we got another new hire in! OK everybody, lets have another vote on whether we want the Teamsters to represent us as our sole bargaining agent. That will be $5495 each to pay for the election.

Great got that done. Oh shoot! There's another one! OK everyone, pony up another check so we can vote again. Don't want to leave anyone out now!

hypocrisy · Jan 31, 2012

My goodness! I've got my panties all in a bunch! I just can't stand these Union members with their fat paychecks, paid cadillac healthcare, job security and pensions! I'll tell them how stupid, unethical, dishonest, and now "crazy" they are so they'll cut their own throats and vote for RTW and maybe a decertification election later! That will work!

PobreCarlos · Jan 31, 2012

crowbar;

How much "job security" do those million or so Teamsters who lost their jobs have? How much "cadillac healthcare" are they receiving? What type of SECURE pensions are they being offered? What type of "grievance procedure" do they have when it comes to dealing with the Unemployment Office?

As for what 'might"...well, the moon "might" fall to earth tomorrow as well. (and sometimes I think it's an event more likely to happen than the Teamsters making a serious effort an organizing FedEx!) As for "deregulation" being the reason for the "loss of freight jobs"...well, pray tell; how's that? The Teamster-organized companies came out of regulation with exactly the same status as the non-organized companies EXCEPT that they already had all their ducks in a row; they had the capital, they had the workforce, they had the equipment, they had the terminals, and they had all the other folderol that makes for a going enterprise. The non-Teamster start-ups, by way of comparison, had none of those things....except a workforce willing to be COMPETITIVE...and the fact that they didn't feel the need to be SUBSIDIZED by the affliction of unnecessarily high rates on the consumer. I.e. - whenever I hear a Teamster denounce "deregulation", I know I'm listening to an individual who doesn't think he can make it on his OWN hook, a person who feels he needs welfare to survive. Because essentially that's what "regulation" was; a form of welfare for a privileged minority that was in no way earned.

Lastly, maybe I'm NOT "changing any one's mind"....but I sure seem to have stirred-up a hornet's nest of opposition for someone who allegedly has so little affect on what people think. Why is that, I wonder?

As for your "sticking to the facts"....well, I guess you demonstrate pretty consistently how much you stick to "the facts" in the way you "quote" what I supposedly said time after time, don't you? [smile]

Lastly, I hope that it's not to much of an affront to mention that those working for non-union carriers are probably making substantially more than their "Teamster" brethren currently working at Red Star. Or Consolidated. Or P.I.E. Or McLean. Or American Freight. Or Spector Redball. Or Maislin Transport. Or hall Motor Freight. Etc., etc (I could list another 70 or so if you insist) Or even - according to the Teamster employees there themselves - at YRCW, for that matter.

But I guess my mentioning all of the above is just more evidence that I'm a "complete :censored2:

bag", 'eh? [smile] Gosh know, none of it is RELEVANT!

PobreCarlos · Jan 31, 2012

crowbar;

No need for you guys to "pony up" at all; as I pointed out earlier, there's nothing that REQUIRES the union - except it's own greed! - to represent everyone. It can drop "exclusive" representative status any time it chooses, and just represent those who actually WANT to be members. If that's not an attractive alternative to you, pray tell WHY? Could it be that the union NEEDS the "nons" more than the "nons" need the union? Perish the thought!

PobreCarlos · Jan 31, 2012

Ladies and Gentlemen;

Here's a link I thought some of you might want to peruse. I'm sure many of you will consider the article biased, but even so I think you'll find the partial list of closed "Teamster" trucking companies it provides at the bottom rather informative. It is....

"http://www.1-888-no-union.com/teamstersoutofbusiness.html"

Thanks.....

hypocrisy · Jan 31, 2012

Hornets nest? It's just you and me paco. Seems like you lost some of your misguided cronies that actually had some credibility. You're a fake, just a Union Busting RTW plant not worker like the rest of us. Taking cues from you is like asking the CEO if I should get that expensive surgery they are going to have to pay for.

As for making more, you couldn't be more wrong. Just take a look at the back of any trailer to see what these non-union carriers are paying per mile. It's usually less than half what UPS pays our sleeper teams. It's less if they aren't o/o & there are lots of "gotcha's" in there like a paltry tire allowance, paying for insurance, etc. When you start deducting that what they actually take home is paltry. Yet companies like ABF are growing and doing quite well (almost $25/hr for truck drivers & Teamster pension, healthcare & other benefits very similar to ours at UPS. See that's a fact instead of just listing a name.) What you fail to mention is all the bankruptcies and shut downs that occurred well after deregulation, and those were not primarily Union carriers. It's common wisdom among OTR's that you shouldn't expect to work for a company more than 5 years because they will probably go belly up. This is progress? Gee, sounds like more of that job security you think kicking out the Union will bring...

As I said things will go in cycles and regulation is making a comeback. Ray LaHood isn't kowtowing to the industry like his predecessors. If you think deregulation is a good thing, I have news for you. Ever fly on an airline when they were regulated? The service was a hell of a lot better and they didn't pack you in like sardines. Oh price? You might be surprised to know that on many route you were paying about the same as you do now. Sure, some highly competitive markets are cheaper but not enough to make it worth what you put up with. Meanwhile, Unionized flight attendants, mechanics, and pilots have hung on. By your logic they would have fled the Unions long ago. A little uncomfortable now?

hypocrisy · Jan 31, 2012

Oh are you back on that again? Sounds like you're the cranky old man who wants to have a full messy garden in his front yard while all his HOA neighbors suffer. Hey, plant your garden in a neighborhood that doesn't have an HOA grandpa! This one does.

hypocrisy · Jan 31, 2012

Oh more RTW propaganda? Wow, that writing sure sounds familiar..... I realize I'm just a unintelligent, dishonest, unethical Teamster truck driver, but that second paragraph suuuuurrrrreee sounds suspicious. That was Nickel and Hour for Teamster Power, not quite the 25% your propaganda makes it out to be. Oh, and it was approved by our democratically elected representatives sort of like how, you know, Congress works and pretty much any institution in this representative democracy.

So go pedal your anti-Union rants elsewhere. UPS is a Teamster represented company and we are staying that way. We have no difficulty running rings around our competition so sorry this is another Union success story that doesn't fit into your doomsday scenario. We have been Union for over 100 years and your sorry ass isn't going to change that.

Thanks Pobre for that link, now we know where you came from.

PobreCarlos · Jan 31, 2012

crowbar;

"We have been Union for over 100 years", 'eh? Is that right?! Nice to see you how well you "know" your company history. [smile]

Not sure if you're either a "Teamster" or a "truckdriver"....but your posts confirm that (like you say) you are "unintelligent, dishonest, unethical". And I think it's pretty obvious that, right now, you're way out of your league when it comes to dealing with people of worth. With that in mind, why don't you get back with me when you grow-up? Perhaps you'll make a better impression then. One would hope so.

Anyway, good luck in trying to achieve adulthood, "crowbar"; gosh knows you've got a long and rocky path in front of you.

menotyou · Jan 31, 2012

Living near a McCleans means I know people who work there, in different aspects. The people that I know who work there, including truck drivers, are jealous of where I work, the representation I have and the contract I work under.

hypocrisy · Jan 31, 2012

You think you are a 'person of worth'? And you call me arrogant? I have more class on my pinky finger after I've stuck it up my ass that you ever will. I'm both a proud Teamster and a Feeder Driver and this dumb truck driver has made you look like the complete fool that you are (next time please make it more of a challenge).

This morning I was getting on the freeway and I swear I saw the bum on the corner holding a sign that said "laid off Teamster truck driver". So I was a little worried and I went down to the soup kitchen where my first wife volunteers and checked to see if there were any Teamsters in there. There were! But they were on the serving side helping the homeless. Then I went down to the Adult Education center where my second wife works to see if there were any Teamsters down there. There were! But they were volunteering to help teach people who could really use their help. Then I went down to the State Mental Hospital where my third wife works to see if there were any Teamsters in there. Couldn't find any but she did point out some Right to Work people who were spouting the same drivel you are. Guess I'll do OK!

Dark_Team_135 · Feb 1, 2012

SCB (That is who this guy posts as on TNet),

I'll probably regret asking this question but here goes: You keep saying this (the quote in BOLD above). Do you have any proof of this or is it just something that you read in a Union busting article somewhere? Are you an attorney that has the required legal knowledge to back this up with at least some case law or something? If this is true, then why in your opinion wouldn't Unions in RTW states be doing it? It can't be greed if they are spending money and other resources representing freeloaders...

menotyou · Feb 1, 2012

It is obvious he has an agenda. Thank you for the tip, DT135. :bigsmile2:

His arrogance and ego knows no bounds.

PobreCarlos · Feb 1, 2012

Dark_Team;

As I mentioned in another post the N.friend.L. Players Association went that route just a few short months ago; they "decertified", and bargained as a non-certified association of MEMBERS only, primarily in hopes of pursuing anti-trust issues against the owners. There are also several casts of well-known television shows who have bargained that way as well (Seinfeld and Friends, I believe, to name a couple). Fact is, there's nothing at all unusual about it; it's as basic as hiring a lawyer - or anyone else, for that matter - to represent you. And remember BASIC labor law protects any group that acts in a "concerted" (not individual) fashion.

Why don't unions use it? Again, greed. You see, they would lose certain forms of legal support if they went that route. For one, companies wouldn't HAVE to negotiate with them (although the "concerted" action thing would apply, meaning that union members couldn't be arbitrarily fired for their efforts); they would have to use their natural ECONOMIC power to achieve what they wanted to achieve. And they would subject themselves (I'm "iffy" here, so don't hold me to this!) certain legal problems as well...for example, being held liable for statements and actions that they can now usually skate away with.

But the primary reason they don't go that route - and this is one I've already mentioned as well - is the COMPETITION! If unions don't have the right to "represent" ALL the workers, then that means that workers who choose OTHER representation, or no representation at all, can do so. And who do you think those would be? The weaker, less-valued by management workers who (with good reason!) seek the union's protection? Or the real industrious go-getters, who, being highly valued by management, would be held-back if they settled for "union" wages? THEY - the industrious workers - would see their lot improved, while the weaker workers would find a rough row to hoe. What would they (the weaker workers) do? Go on strike? Not holding a labor monopoly, they'd be replaced in no time flat....or at least that's the way unions feel about it today.

The only alternatives, of course, are either "compulsion" (the only path on which the unions seem to feel they can exist today), or the path that the original labor pioneer Samuel G saw as best for "organized" labor...one in which the unions DEMONSTRATED the benefits of membership to workers in order to ATTRACT them rather than seeking laws that FORCED them to belong.

Like I said earlier, the unions get much more out of the non-members than the non-members get out of the union. And the proof is in the pudding. In the "RTW" states, as you've seemed to notice, they still aren't taking that route. While there are a few, it's a very, VERY small number that have chosen to drop "exclusive representation" status. They just don't have the guts to try to exist on the basis of their ability to attract members by virture of benefits they have to offer alone.

One of the consequences, however, is that unions are ALWAYS going to face criticism about limiting peoples choices, and rightfully so. Remember, unionism isn't just about raising the level of the "low", but also of bringing down the level of the "high". There is no such thing as a "free lunch"; someone has to pay. In the case of unionism, it's those who would be doing better (and there are many of them; that's a primary reason why "union" penetration of the workforce is at such an abysmal level today) without the union, and are being held-back by forced representation who are paying the price.

I questioned earlier as to just when the Indiana UPSers got to to vote on whether they wanted to be union members or not. Maybe they once had that choice...although I doubt even that. If they did, it was back in the fifties....and I'm fairly certain that if they DID have a choice a half a century ago, there probably aren't any of them around who cast a ballot back then who are still employed today. And don't you find that a bit strange...that people aren't able to even express a CHOICE as to whether to go "union" or not during their ENTIRE working career? And consider that in light of the Teamsters recent national election in which only 17.6% or so of the ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP cared enough about the union bureaucracy to even vote. Don't you think that reflects a rather "dictatorial" situation?

In spite of assertions by bozos like "crowbar" there, the Teamsters haven't been a part of UPS "for over 100 years"; they were actually invited in by Casey in the 1920's. And I'm not sure the employees had any type of vote (this is before the NLRA, of course) on the matter even back then. That said, I'm not AGAINST the Teamsters being at UPS, nor am I pushing strongly for them to drop "exclusive" status; I'm well aware that, without such status, at a highly competitive place like UPS, the union would be gone faster than a dog's fart in the breeze. Heck, in terms of the total number of employees, actual Teamster members are already less than half of the company's workforce today. But I also don't think the unions ought to be griping about "freeloaders", since they know damned well that, if left to their OWN devices and allowed to make their OWN choices, the labor alternative they represented would make the union superfluous.

Unions may gripe about spending the money on representing non-members...but they'll continue spending it. But it won't be because they're interested in protecting the rights of those non-members or any other such pie-in-the-sky stuff, but rather for the simple matter of simple self-preservation and institutional greed. Despite that, however, I'm fairly sure you're going to see even more examples - even in "non-RTW states - along the lines of the recent Manitowoc Crane strike and subsequent settlement; i.e. - the unions will no longer be able to force compulsory dues from those who choose not to be members. After all, there's no law that says employers HAVE to sign dues check-off clause, or REQUIRE their employees to pay any type of fee to a union. And given the recent trends (lockouts and such), I think you'll see more and more employers with the fortitude to go that route. With the existence of "RTW" states and the onslaught of foreign competition, many of them will simply have to go that route if they want to stay in business.

The bottom line is that unions are TERRIFIED by the idea of workers having a "free choice". Even with the partisanship evident in the recent Teamsters election, the low level of participation has to have the unions bureaucracy quivering in their boots at the realization that SOMEDAY, this more-than-80% segment of the membership might have a CHOICE in whether they want to belong - and be "represented" - or not. As long as they feel that way, I think they'll be fighting a rear-guard battle for theirvery existence.

PobreCarlos · Feb 1, 2012

"crowbar"

Yep, no doubt you "have more class on [your] pinky finger after [you've] stuck it up my ass that ever will". And, equally, there's no doubt you "made [me] look like a complete fool" as well. And UPS has been union for "over a hundred years", too. Right!

Thanks for the "information", "crowbar"....you always seem to add so MUCH to the "discussion".

(BTW, I'm quite willing to believe that you're the type of guy who, as you seem to be admitting, "sticks his pinky finger up his ass"; you DO have the much "credibility" with me)

hembone · Feb 1, 2012

Bingo. I was wondering if anyone had figured it out besides me.

hembone · Feb 1, 2012

I was wanting to tell you, but I'm not sure about all the rules on these sites and didn't know if it was a no-no to "out" someone.

p.s. This guy loves to argue.

menotyou · Feb 1, 2012

You can always PM me. :bigsmile2:

hypocrisy · Feb 1, 2012

Well I'd say you outlined it pretty good as a blueprint to just rid the Company of the Union, thanks for revealing your agenda. So it's not really about 'free choice' or 'freedom' as you so nobly claim.

Gee, lets say I'm someone who is 21 years old and just started driving for UPS. I'm a real go-getter and all those old drivers are so lazy! I can run circles around them and right now I'm being limited by my low progression pay! That's just not right, I should be valued more and paid more! Lets kick out the Union and the Company, because they value me so much, will just send my pay through the roof and I'll know benefits never even dreamed of! (That's exactly how Fedex does it, isn't it? THEY don't have a Union encumbering them at all!) This will be so great! ... .... .... ... Hey, now I'm 40 and my body is a little worn out after pushing myself so hard all those years. I'm still productive but those skinny kids just run circles around me. Don't they know how to pace themselves? Man, It's been tough having to get food stamps because the Company reduced my pay so much, and it never skyrocketed like they claimed it would. Now they are talking about going to a two-tiered benefit plan that would lower the coverage just when I need it. My wife is getting ready to leave me because she had to go back to work and the kids college fund was used up long ago. Sure wish I had that Pension plan we used to have because I haven't had any extra to contribute to my 401k even with the 3% match the Company gave instead of the pension. Things didn't quite work out like I thought they would.

Hey Pobrecaca, you do notice that of the 3 groups you mentioned that two of them are now unemployed? That's a 66% failure rate. Seems like de-certification is more of a guarantee of job loss than the Teamsters are. Oh, don't like that little fact?

Stop smelling my finger Pobre.

The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

bella amicizia

Banned

Well-Known Member

bella amicizia

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

bella amicizia

Banned

Similar threads